Americas choice

[Speedwell]

The phrase "freedom of worship" is problematic. It is the preferred phrase the Obama administration used rather than the older and more comprehensive "religious liberty". Or even better, use the first amendment's free exercise language as the exercise of religion is far more than what occurs in a building on Sunday morning (or Saturday if that's your thing). That means the right to express yourself in a manner consistent with your christian faith including how you run your business (Burwell vs Hobby Lobby stores), run your schools (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was a unanimous 9-0 decision siding with the church) or the type of health insurance you provide for your employees (Little Sisters of the Poor vs Azar). In other words the right to act as a christian in every avenue in life not just Sunday mornings. Freedom of worship addresses none of what I wrote. At the very least I think it's fair to say the Obama years were antagonistic towards churches.

Only toward those with that attitude about what constitutes "freedom of worship" and "religious liberty."

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh right I was wondering why you focused on this one issue at the expense of all the other points. Just looked at your profile.

Some non-Christians know more about Christianity than Christians themselves.

 

[mindlight]

Anyways can we get back to the American election

 

[variant]

Anyways can we get back to the American election

It's distracting to see people pine for the kind of religious control that would have had me executed, while at the same time complaining about Christmas cards, and the right to have healthcare plans that don't cover abortions.

 

[FireDragon76]

Only toward those with that attitude about what constitutes "freedom of worship" and "religious liberty."

Your religious liberty ends where my rights begin. Your religion doesn't give you the right to violate the dignity of others. That's just foundational to any civilized society based on the social contract.

 

[Speedwell]

Anyways can we get back to the American election

Without talking about Christianity? Don't be silly.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's distracting to see people pine for the kind of religious control that would have had me executed, while at the same time complaining about Christmas cards, and the right to have healthcare plans that don't cover abortions.

Yeah, it's hard to not be distracted when people try to basically erase what amounts to sacred memory of people who suffered under the "one true religion" and its associated regimes.

I don't see myself as necessarily hating Christians, but it's this un-sober analysis of Church history that leads the uninformed and uncritical masses to support people like Trump in the first place. Because they actually believe in Christian utopias of the past.

 

[Athanasius377]

It's hard to see how some of that wouldn't create a lot of division and antagonism. Would people keen to provide schools where Christian worship is part of the curriculum be just as keen to accept Islamic or Hindu schools (etc)?

It doesn’t matter. The right is enshrined in our constitution. If someone doesn’t like it they can go to school somewhere else. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we are secular but we are a pluralistic society. And most of the time religious schools are not an issue regardless of the religion.

Those kind of ideas, like an employer deciding what medical coverage an employee can have, are pretty disturbing, and seem to go against the grain of the supposed American dislike of totalitarianism. If an employer or business feels it has the right to interfere with or criticise other people's right to live how they chose, and not be dictated to, then I don't see any good reason why there shouldn't be consequences for that. A secular government that operates under a paradigm of treating all citizens equally is less like to lead to pointless conflict and the tyranny of the small-minded.

Again, if that’s a problem then go work for another firm. Yet that’s true of anything a firm does. If you don’t like it work someone else. The owner of a business can run their business as the see fit. If it costs them talent then that’s the business’s problem. It’s not the government’s role to tell said business how to operate.

The link poster gave was criticizing Obama for his Christmas cards, and what ornaments were on his tree.



All of those decisions went your way...

You were asked what new prohibitions were enacted.

I wasn't addressing Obama's christmas tree nor do I care what he decorated it with. I was addressing the issue of freedom of worship vs religious liberty. The reason I mentioned the cases was that even the Supreme Court rejected the notion of religious liberty being restricted to freedom of worship.

 

[Speedwell]

Your religious liberty ends where my rights begin. Your religion doesn't give you the right to violate the dignity of others. That's just foundational to any civilized society based on the social contract.

But some people can't quite get past the idea that the US is really supposed to be somehow a "Christian nation" (even thought The Left is trying to deny it) and that in some magical way it gives Christianity more rights than other religions. Especially Evangelical Protestantism, which was the de facto national religion for much of the 19th and early 20th century and remains the official religion of the Lost Cause.

 

[variant]

I wasn't addressing Obama's christmas tree nor do I care what he decorated it with. I was addressing the issue of freedom of worship vs religious liberty. The reason I mentioned the cases was that even the Supreme Court rejected the notion of religious liberty being restricted to freedom of worship.

Which is a point of agreement between me and them and you I suppose.

 

[FireDragon76]

But some people can't quite get past the idea that the US is really supposed to be somehow a "Christian nation" (even thought The Left is trying to deny it) and that in some magical way it gives Christianity more rights than other religions. Especially Evangelical Protestantism, which was the de facto national religion for much of the 19th and early 20th century and remains the official religion of the Lost Cause.

Indeed. Some Christians have a problem with checking their privilege.

This country was built by people of all religions and none, it's just our stories have been minimized in the past few decades as white conservative Christians have gained power. Chinese railroad workers and laundries, Japanese shopkeepers and farmers, Native Americans, Jewish secularists like Karl Sagan or Isaac Asimov, freethinkers like Emmerson (who was not a monotheist)... all those people were pagans or non-monotheists, but they literally built America just as much as white Protestants, if not moreso.

 

[Tom 1]

Your profile says Rumania. I think your experience of religious liberty is superior to that of the Rumanian church under Communism. It was the same in Germany. The wounds of godless communism are still apparent today in Eastern European abortion rates for instance compared to the West

Yes, Communism was profoundly dehumanising. That doesn't alter the point however. Jesus lived under a puppet ruler, himself under control of the occupying Roman empire, and paid no attention to it at all. When pushed, his response was 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's' - let the world manage it's own affairs. The same message is apparent throughout the Bible, under any conditions people who chose faith in God are expected to essentially mind their own business - the business of the church. The rest of it is about lifestyle choices, not faith.

 

[Fantine]

We are reaching a disastrous imbalance in the courts. The justices who have been appointed are not interested in studying cases and interpreting the law. Most of them read the titleand know their position and spend their time figuring out a rationale to defend it. McConnell's treachery played a part in this, of course.
Bottom line is that if the courts get much more imbalanced AOC could become president and control both houses and every single law they passed would be declared unconstitutional by the Federalist Society. We are at the Tipping Point. If we want continue having a democracy we have to stop the stacking of the Courts.

 

[FireDragon76]

We are reaching a disastrous imbalance in the courts. The justices who have been appointed are not interested in studying cases and interpreting stunning cases and interpreting the law. Most of them read the titleQ and know their position and spend their time figuring out a rationale to defend it. McConnell's treachery played a part in this, of course.

Excellent analysis.

Genuine inquiry and openness, the search for truth, is lost on these men (and I use that term purposefully). Especially Thomas, he just isn't interested in asking questions. That isn't a bug, it's a feature

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Obamas response, unlike 90% of presidents before him, was characterised by an understanding of the church state separation that meant the president could not behave like a Christian for fear of offending the others. But the result was bans on prayer in public schools and a degrading of the authority of the presidency in many Christians eyes.

Those Christians should get their eyes checked, then. There absolutely were no resulting bans on prayer in public schools or a degrading of the authority of the presidency. That sounds like biased, anti-Obama propaganda. Obama was hated by many because he was black and for no other reason; the people who hate him in a racist way fabricate reasons to cover up for their racist hatred of him.

 

[Tom 1]

Again, if that’s a problem then go work for another firm. Yet that’s true of anything a firm does. If you don’t like it work someone else. The owner of a business can run their business as the see fit. If it costs them talent then that’s the business’s problem. It’s not the government’s role to tell said business how to operate.

I think it's a case of where the line is drawn - every developed country has some level of the govt telling businesses how to operate, if that wasn't the case we'd never have got past the days of indentured servitude. In Europe generally worker protections are pretty solid, employers can't just sack people or change their working conditions overnight on a whim, and there are cultural differences between the US and Europe regarding the dividing line between a person's work contract with an organisation and their private life, although a person can of course lose their job if they act in ways that reflect badly on the company. I suppose it's a question of what you are used to, to me it seems that the government is generally more interested in my welfare than any private employer would be, although I work for myself now, so I would put the dividing line more in the direction of preventing worker exploitation. The US system seems to more geared towards benefiting large business owners for whom the effects of employee turnover are negligible.

 

[Athanasius377]

A secular government that operates under a paradigm of treating all citizens equally is less like to lead to pointless conflict and the tyranny of the small-minded.

I would remind you that a secular government is just as capable of becoming a tyranny of the small minded as any King ruling by divine right especially in the 20th century.

I suppose it would depend what the extent of it is - if the government is telling some religious educational institute who it should appoint to teach then that's a clear overreach, on the other hand in day to day civil society people should expect to be treated in the same way and not feel coerced to comply with any beliefs they don't hold. That's a recipe for unending and pointless conflict.

I agree with this statement. I would take in one step further and say that civil society by the same token should not be coercing religious people to comply with beliefs they do not hold either.

 

[Tom 1]

I would remind you that a secular government is just as capable of becoming a tyranny of the small minded as any King ruling by divine right especially in the 20th century.

True, but a well founded legislative body makes it less likely than the random chance of getting a 'good' king, or employer, and the ability to vote a government in or out provides some balance on things going too far in any one direction, I think.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree with this statement. I would take in one step further and say that civil society by the same token should not be coercing religious people to comply with beliefs they do not hold either.

What would you consider to be an example of that?

 

[Athanasius377]

True, but a well founded legislative body makes it less likely than the random chance of getting a 'good' king, or employer, and the ability to vote a government in or out provides some balance on things going too far in any one direction, I think.

I wish this were true. Yet consider why we have a document telling the government what it is allowed to do. I assume Romania does as well. Evil is more easily stirred in men and women's hearts more than we think. And consider a king still requires a number of people to do his bidding so number doesn't mean much.